Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a 'retrieve' action, but the API endpoint uses PATCH with 'restore' in the path, suggesting it might modify state (e.g., restoring a recycled item). However, the description does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or what the outcome is (e.g., if it moves the near miss out of the recycle bin). This lack of detail leaves behavioral traits ambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single line that combines the tool name with an API endpoint, lacking proper structure. It is not front-loaded with a clear purpose, and the inclusion of the endpoint path adds technical detail without explanatory value. While concise, it fails to communicate effectively, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity implied by the API endpoint (a PATCH operation to restore a recycled near miss), the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to clarify behavioral aspects, and there is no output schema to indicate the response. The description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent without sufficient context to understand the tool's full impact and usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (project_id, id, incident_id). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra help from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Retrieve Recycled Near Miss' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path '[Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/recycle_bin/incidents/near_misses/{id}/restore', which suggests a 'restore' action rather than a simple 'retrieve', but this is not explicitly explained in plain language. The purpose is vague and does not clearly distinguish the tool's function from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other 'recycled' or 'near miss' tools). Without this information, an agent cannot make an informed decision about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.